Opinion
20154.
ARGUED JULY 16, 1958.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1958.
Injunction. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Pharr. April 23, 1958.
Bobby Lee Cook, Joseph L. Llop, Cecil Palmour, for plaintiffs in error.
Wilson, Branch Barwick, Poole, Pearce Hall, R. T. Thompson, John Patton, contra.
The judgment of the court below dismissing the petition, upon motion duly made by the defendants, was not error for any reason assigned.
ARGUED JULY 16, 1958 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1958.
This is a suit between certain named members of a labor union on the one hand and the union and the employer on the other. The facts as alleged in the petition out of which this dispute arose are briefly these: Wilson Trucking Company (hereinafter referred to as Wilson) bought all the stock and assets of Simpson Trucking Company (hereinafter referred to as Simpson), and Wilson thereafter took over complete control of Simpson. The employees of Wilson were members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 728, the exclusive bargaining agent for the member employees. The question of the seniority of the employees of Simpson who were to be retained and assimilated into Wilson arose, and the employer determined that the former employees of Simpson who were to be retained would be placed at the end of the Wilson seniority list. To this procedure, the union objected, contending that the Simpson employees should be "dovetailed" into the Wilson seniority list. This dispute was submitted to arbitration, and it was decided that the employees of Simpson should be "dovetailed" into the Wilson seniority list. When this decision was announced, forty-two employees of Wilson, who allege that they would lose seniority and their jobs as a result of the "dovetailing" procedure, brought this suit to enjoin the employer from giving any effect to the combined seniority list, and from displacing or discharging any of the petitioners by virtue of said seniority list.
Thereafter, upon motion of defendant Wilson, certain named persons individually and as representatives of a class consisting of all the members, agents, and employees of Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 728, and certain named persons individually and as representatives of a class consisting of all members of the Joint State Committee for the States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama created pursuant to Southeastern Area over-the-road Motor Freight Agreement dated June 21, 1955, were made parties defendant. The defendants made a motion to dismiss the petition. This motion was sustained. The exception here is to that judgment.
It is obvious from the statement of facts above set out that this is a dispute between certain dissatisfied members of a labor union and the union regarding the procedure to be followed in assimilating the employees of Simpson into the seniority list of Wilson. It will be observed that the union is the duly constituted bargaining agent for the employees of Wilson, including the petitioners in this case. The contract between the Union and the company provided, among other things, that in the event the company should absorb the business of another contract or common carrier, "the seniority of the employees absorbed or affected thereby shall be jointly determined by the Union or Unions and the Employer. Failing determination by these parties, the matter shall be processed under the grievance procedure set out in Article X of this Agreement." In the instant case, Wilson absorbed Simpson in the most complete manner possible. The Union and the Employer were unable to settle the question as to the seniority rights, and they resorted to the procedure set out in Article X of the labor contract, which provided for arbitration by the Joint State Committee. Article X further provided that, "Where a Joint State Committee, by majority vote, settles a dispute, no appeal may be taken to the Joint Area Committee. Such a decision will be final and binding on both parties."
Whatever seniority rights the petitioners have arise solely out of the contract between the Union and the Employer, and may be lost or altered in accordance with the terms of the contract. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 ( 73 Sup. Ct. 681, 97 L. ed. 1048). The provisions above referred to are just as much a part of the contract as those providing for seniority. All members of a labor union who have constituted such union as their bargaining agent are bound by the terms of the contract made in their behalf by such labor union. Savage v. Western Union Tel. Co., 198 Ga. 728 ( 32 S.E.2d 785).
Therefore, in the absence of fraud on the part of the Union which has resulted in injury or damage to these petitioners, petitioners are bound by the terms of the contract negotiated in their behalf, and the decision of the Joint State Committee is final and binding. The petition in the instant case is wholly lacking in any allegation of fraud or any suggestion of fraud on the part of the Union or anybody else. The petition alleges only that the Union represented the interest of the Union as a whole rather than the interest of the petitioners. If the Union did as alleged, and it is apparent that it did, they did exactly what they were bound to do. Any other action would have violated the obligation they assumed as the bargaining agent and representative of the employees who constituted it. "Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion." Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338, supra.
It therefore appears that these plaintiffs in error have no standing in court to question the authority of their bargaining representative or to question the propriety of their acts, in the absence of any allegation of fraudulent acts or improper purposes in their actions. Lamon v. Georgia Southern c. Ry. Co., 212 Ga. 63 ( 90 S.E.2d 658). It follows that the judgment of the court below dismissing the petition upon motion of the defendants was not error.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.